Army Comparison: What makes an army better? A community project with beginners in mind.

Here is an ice post to help noobies who are looking for good starting 40k info. While it is intended for beginners, I'm sure vets will have their input. Lets put our heads together and create a document that helps every one!

A recent comment on my youtube channel about IG being the "Strongest Codex" and some guys disagreeing with that statement has me thinking. So here are my thoughts! First of all, at Bolscon, the Best General was a guard player. He was a really nice guy and fun to talk to, but by his own admittance, was more of a nooby. He was playing a thrown together army designed to win tournaments. Nothing wrong with that! The point here is that a relative newcomer won Best General in an 80+ man tournament simply by playing a "Point and Shoot" army. I have seen it happen before in 4th edition with guys playing Genestealer armies. He lost the overall title to a Tyranid player who was a veteran. We will get into experience giving players the edge later on.

This discussion is about strength of lists. It is my contention that the Best General Guard list, in the hands of a Veteran 40k player, is unbeatable in standard play. Of course odd mission rules help to level the playing field, but for this discussion, we will keep to the more simple scenarios. (Though I feel that this guard list is versatile enough to excell at any scenario, odd mission or funky rules you can throw at it.)

So on with the point of this post! How do we measure an armies strength, and when is that army categorized as Broken or Overmatched?

Lets come up with some nice categories with which to measure our armies. Mobility, Fire Power, Assault Power and Survivability are 4 nice places to start.

If you look at most games, you will see the 'Base' army or unit. This is the army that truely excells at nothing, but is good at every thing. In most combat racing games, there is the Huge lumbering tank vehicle that is slow as hell but takes a beating, there is the tiny zoomy car that is hard to hit, but once you do it goes down fast, then there is the easy to control, sort of fast middle car that has no drawbacks or strengths. Its mediocrity is its strength! Think Mario in Super Mario Brothers Two. In the 40k world, this is the Space Marines. They have no real flaws, but no real focus! This is where armies vary in this is where they must be measured. So using the Marines as a base, the Eldar for example excell at mobility but surrender survivability, while the Tau excell at fire power but fail in assault.

So let us come up with a scale. I open to you guys a forum on what and how to measure. I will begin this with the four categories I started. Remember, this is for newcomers, so lets keep it video game simple. Lets rate each army based on:

Mobility: The overall speed of an armies units.
Survivability: The overall ability of an army to survive. Related to Armor Values and dirty tricks like Holo Fields.
Fire Power: Duh!
Assault: Blood Angels are obviously a stronger Assault Army then Tau. Why?
Point Cost per model: Does an armies point cost hurt or help them?

Lets dig deep here with our ratings. Blood Angels can take 9 ten man assault squads for example. Obviously, codex knowledge is a must. We are writing this with new comers in mind, so while something may be obvious to you, it is likely not obvious to a beginner, or even a vet for that matter.

Let us rate the armies on a scale from 1 to 20. 20 being the best. I suggest we start with Space Marines since they will base from which we compare every thing else.

My goal here is to create a nice working document that can be linked and referenced by beginners who are coming into the game. This will solve two things. First of all, it will help beginners who are afraid to ask questions and are intimiadated by some of these blogs that may be way over their head. But also, it will give bloggers a direction to point questions to! When some one asks "Hey Ron, I love your blog but I have no clue what the heck you are talking about since I am new... what is a better army, Space Marines or Eldar?" We can say, great question, visit SUCHANDSUCH for your answer!

So the invitation is out to all of you. Comment. Give your appraisals. If you feel marines are a 20 on Survivability, please state why. This is not a debate post. State your input and opinions and I will summarize the scores and feed back into a working document. We want to come up with a firm evaluation of Space Marines first, then we can work on the individual SM off shoot codexes. Once that is done, we can move on to Eldar and beyond. If you are an eldar master, start compiling your evidence, and when the time comes, post it up!

So, have at it! Jawaballs

Edit One: Added "Point Cost" as another category for army comparison.
Edit Two: 9/17/09 Added "Versatility" as another category to reflect the changes to each list brought on by additions of "Special Characters" etc. This measures an armies ability to change itself to meet any needs. I set the Space Marine "versatility" at 20 to begin with.

29 comments:

Paul said...

Jawaballs i just wanted to thanks you in advance for this... this idea is amazing... as i'm one of those "nooby" players i dont really feel i could accuratly rate SM... but i do look forward to hearing other's thoughts...

Ash said...

Space Marines are average Close Combat. Not having a standard close combat weapon/pistol hurts them.

They are vanilla with their str 4, one attack, I would rate them a 10.

Nick said...

As someone fairly new, one thing that I can see confusing me in this issue, is the points cost per model and how that can play into how long a squad or army lasts on the field. Model x may be superior in a lot of ways but cost 50% more in points so you field less.

Someone may rate a particular army's firepower low when considering a single or few models but someone may rate their firepower considerably greater on the whole if you consider how many models they may have massed and firing.

I don't know. Like I said, stuff that *I* might get caught up in.

Still love the idea of this though and I'm sure smarter brains will prevail!

jawaballs said...

Point Cost is a great category for rating armies. Consider it part of the discussion.

Nagamo said...

Hmm, it´s a great idea and I´m sure that it will be very helpful! Very hard to come to a good result, but we will see. It´s difficult to measure the 5 aspects without a reference, but I give it a try, totally subjective of course and based on my knowledge of the codex and my experiences playing against SM...

Mobility: 10 (A balanced SM army isn´t that mobile with the standard 12´´ movement, but a full mech army isn´t bad either.)

Survivability: 15 (Playing against SM a lot, I tend to underrate the marines survivability, but with t4, +3 they are good! In comparison to footslogging eldar, you see the difference ;-))

Fire Power: 13 (Not as much firepower as IG, but with the current Melta- and Flamerspam, it´s quiet effective at short range)

Assault: 10 (Hardhitters like AssTerminators are great, but overall SM aren´t that good in CC. Their survivability helps them to be more effective, but Marines - with Bolter and CC-weapon lacking the Pistol - don´t have enough attacks to truly rock the field.)

Point Cost: 8 (Marines aren´t cheap and so they are often outnumbered. With their codex beeing the second last and GW dropping the overall pointcost with every new ´dex, they will be quiet expensive.)

jawaballs said...

This is as good a start as any. Thanks for the input! I will start a running post that we can modify as more people speak up.

Zeev said...

Tau:

Maneuverability - 15
The tau are the second most mobile army, behind eldar. Nearly everything in our codex can move 12'' a turn...and most of it can shoot after doing that. Even kroot are mobile due to infiltrate and outflank.

Survivability - 8 The tau simply cannot stand up to much of a beating, kroot have no armor save and fire warriors cannot be taken in large enough numbers to be survivable. Same problem with suits. Our only saving grace in survivability are shield drones and Disruption pods. Disruptions pods are the best defensive vehicle upgrade...period.

Firepower - 18 Now were getting somewhere. Nobody can bring as much STR 10 AP 1 as easily as the tau. Hell even our basic gun is STR 5...kroot basically have bolters. Suits can be equipped with missile pods (arguably a better overall weapon than the railgun), plasma, and melta.

Assault - 2 Everything in the tau dex dies to a stiff win in close combat. Kroot are only worth a darn if they get the charge...even then its a coin flip against most units.

Point Cost - 7 Most tau units are overpriced. DF is good...but expensive...suits are great but overpriced...fire warriors suck...kroot are cheap...but not as cheap as orks (and not quite as good)...Hammerheads, Pathfinders, and Broadsides are all relatively points efficient.

Tyler said...

I'm sorry but I would have to rate the Space Marine's point cost at more of a 15. In comparison to what is out there right now, you can put a whole lot more onto the table than you think. Its not just about how many models you get, but how good each one is. 35 point rhinos? 85 point autocannon/hb preds? 105 point mm dreads? Also, regular tac marines may not win assault much, but you usually dont want to, thats what ATSKNF and combat tactics is for. Thats basically hit and run! You will usually lose assault (probably not by much though, they do have great survivability)and then they can put their firepower to work again. Which is also quite good. So for assault, I'd put it at more like a 13. We all know how GW does favor the marines... and sadly this puts our "average middleman" a bit above average unfortunately..

Kevinmcd28 said...

Great idea Jawa, Now I play one of those shooty guard lists and would love people to rate that or see how this fits into the begining of your blog post. ill link in my blog so i dont have to post the entire list

http://warhammer40kimperialguard.blogspot.com/

Ill do your blood angels based on your list and guard on my oppinion/my list.

Blood Angels

Mobility:16
Blood angels are basicly an assault army which is what they excel(and sm for that matter) at. With all assault troops and your rhino rush/baal assault they move quick and deadly. Power armor at its quickest

Survivability: 15
Now even though power armor is the toughest basic armor in the game and space marine units are just plain tough to kill in an infantry to infantry basis I take them down because thier few numbers rips down the survivability. as to say too few to last. Plus preds and all sm vehicles (besides raiders) are weak and easy targets.

Fire Power: 12
Bolters are one of the better standard infantry weapons in the game but when it comes to overall firepower sm are weak in that catagory. Now blood angel baal preds are deadly up to infantry they cant take down anything over 12 armor. (well i play guard so you know why I think this)

Assault:19
Blood angel bread and butter. Even sm in general with Assault termies or just general Tac sqauds they are some of the best close combat troops in the game. Dont get me started on death company!

Point cost: 6

One of the most expensive armies in the game gives you small numbers. Some can even get up to 50 points a model. Good but expensive

average:13.6 out of 20, id personally give them a 14 out of 20 based on my oppinion and not math though

Imperial Gaurd

Mobility:16
Guard footslog a lot but with the widest selection of vehicles and mobile army options they can be a quick rush army if needed.

Survivability: 16
Even though the average lifespan of a guardmen is low the sheer size of units and the frontal LR tank armor being based at 14 makes them hard to get rid of, picture 1000 ants crawling up your legs, easy to kill but you get swarmed by numbers

Fire Power:18
Best ordinance in the game, Really fire power is only weaker than the tau. Ordinance is #1 in the game, Innacuracy being the only downfall but when youve got that many ordinance and that many heavy weapons you cant miss everything.

Assault:5
Ive designed some ok assault troops but they are still the 2nd weakest compared to tau. Good combos of commissars and LT's with also ogryns in support can give you decent assaults.

Point Cost: 17

With the 5th edition codex you get a lot for little now. Some things can be pricy but overall pretty cheap heavy weapons. My base Leman russ BT is only 185, not bad

Tyran said...

not only ordinance but standered las guns (i know your all thinking i'm a prick thinking of this but bear with me) the amount of shots ig put out can stop grey knights on a charge. let alone scentinels with the new plasma cannons it think ig is the best firepower unit in the game. But survivablity should be lower than tau or the same. Admittidaly i'm not the most expirenced player but sceveral times i had korn bezerkers take out whole platoons or termies take out a whole flank. When it comes down to survibality espically obj holding ig suck. It's only their amour that keeps them in the game.

Tyran said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kevinmcd28 said...

yeah true tyran but an experienced IG player can always get around that through sacraficeing sqauds or vehicle shields, They can be more survivable than the tau simply bc they have better stats and bigger numbers. Thats mostly based on tank armor values being so strong for IG

Frostedge40 said...

This Army Comparison is Awesome!!! This helps me take different outlooks on the different kinds of armies. thanks for another amazing post jawaballs!

Batjutsu said...

This is a noteworthy project.
I would suggest using timestamps so that as things change, which 40K alwasys does, old data is stored.

This means old data is not replaced and can be referenced when needed.

This also provides an interesting tacking method in the long-term.

Jacob Bodmer said...

I'd have to rate Space Marines considerably higher in just about every category to be perfectly honest.

Space Marines aren't an "Average across the board" Army. They're an army that *can* excel at anything, just not everything at once.

Special Characters, for example, drastically change the army's strengths.

Speed: 10? No way. Space Marines can easily field some of the fastest armies in the game. Their "Move speed" might not be that impressive, but don't let that fool you.
Between Fast Attack choices that can *scout* 24" (Scout Bikes, Storms)carrying Locator Beacons to set up that first turn Drop Pod assault, or the Dreaded Shrike Scout army, (Nothing like getting charged by 50+ S4 T 4 models on the top of turn 1) Space Marines can be in-your-face-turn-1 like nothing else in the game. Sure, you actually have to *build* them for speed, but that's true of any army (How fast is a Eldar guardian swarm?)

I suggest a 14 for speed for the amazing alpha-strike-start-wherever-we-feel-like capabilities, though it is followed by slower subsequent movement.

Obviously, speed and survivability are inversely proportional. The faster you're able to go, the softer you are (in general)

Survivability: 15? I think this is too high. The ability to survive fire is always directly linked to your model cost. Sure, They've got some stellar choices (Land Raiders, Iron Clads, TH+SS Terms) but, ultimately, their basic troop choices are the same T4 3+ models that 72% of armies have, and SMs are more expensive than some. Troops are what need to survive most (in 2/3 of games anyway) As such, their functional survivability isn't that far above average. There was a time when Space Marines were the "Tough" army, that time was 3rd edition.
12 at most.

Obviously, you can spam "tough" choices. I know a player who has 2 Land Raiders with terminators and an Iron clad. Solid army, no very good at scoring though. Ultimately, the high point cost of their "Tough" units, and the fact that they are not scoring, prevents SM from being a "brick".

Fire Power: 13?
Yes, and no. Certainly, their long-ranged firepower leaves a lot to be desired but their short range, especially combined with, say, Vulkan, is bar none. That makes this category difficult to rate, but probably at least a 14 over all.

Assault 10.
Yeah, I guess they're pretty average. They have some amazing choices (Iron Clads, TH+SS, Chappies make everything better etc) but none are scoring. Then again, they can take Pedro and create a 12" bubble of kicking ass and taking names...

Point cost: an 8 is probably close, they're fairly average on the cost scale, perhaps a bit below.

It's just such a versatile list! You really can excel at anything you want with it.

Want an assault list? Pedro, Terminators, Eat stuff. Your assault score skyrockets, but your point value plummets.

Want to move fast? Take Drop pods, Scouts, Shrike, or all the above. You'll move like the wind! for a turn... but your survivability goes in the toilet.

Anyway, I think you get the point.

So, the design question that must ask is "Do we Rate armies based on the best they can do?" Or do we judge by something else, some kind of fictional "Average List"?, unfair to codices designed around customizing your army to your play style (Eldar, Space Marines) , or by yet another method?
Do we rate each codex unit-by-unit and average it out? (Which would unfairly hurt some solid codices with a plurality of garbage units (I'm looking at you, chaos!)
Do we rate, categorically, based on potential?
It's hard to say which is the "right" way to do it...

jawaballs said...

Jacob, great post! But I think we need to reign it in a little. Your points are solid and well supported. However, Ithink the spirit of this project is to give the average noob a starting point. You do make a great point though, and I think just introduced a new category to judge our armies. Versatility! Every thing that you said would grant the Space Marines a Versatility score of 20. They are without a doubt the most versatile army in the game, with the ability to compete against any threat. I will add this category to the list based on your input.

I think we should keep our values to the base codex lists for now to create a base. Also, a nice rubric for a starting point would be awesome, rather then using the Space Marines as a base since you are right, they are actually better then average at most aspects of the game. Great stuff!

Jacob Bodmer said...

The problem is, I can't think of a single list that rates a "10" cross-categorically. Or even multi-categorically.

It's really, really hard to establish what's "Average" in the 40k universe. We could, ignoring army codices for a moment, just assume the C:SM tactical squad to be a "True 10" then base our gauging of various units (and, from that, various armies) around that.

So, a 10 in durability is T 4 1 W w/ a 3+ save.

A 10 in assault is 1 S4 WS4 attack at I4 (2 on charge) and access to 1 special H2H Weapon.

A 10 in shooting is access to 1 (cheap) heavy weapon, and access to 1 (cheap) special weapon, as well as a S 4 AP 5 rapid fire weapon on everyone else.

Mobility: a 6" move + 6" run and access to a 12" moving transport seems a respectable 10 baseline.

A 10 in point cost is access to the above for C:SM points.

And a 10 in versatility is options comparable to a tactical squad (3 special weapons, 3 transport options etc)

Though, I think that's a bit skewed, I'd rate the Tac squad as around a 7 in assault, and a 14 in versatility. But we need to establish a baseline somewhere...

As a side thought,
What would a codex look like that turns out to be:
Assault: 10
Shooting: 10
Durability: 10
Speed: 10
Point Cost: 10
Versatility: 10
I can't think of *any* 40k army perfectly average across the board.


Some categories are also very, very hard to separate. Speed/Assault for example (as we all know, Khorne 'zerks are useless if they never get to charge)

I suggest we use a system similar to that of Ken Lacy:
http://fightingtigersofveda.com/orcboy9.html
which was a great, objective analysis of the various 40k armies when it was written (Years ago, in the grim darkness of 3rd edition)

It eschews a simple number rating (a 4 is BETTER than a 2, always, no questions asked etc) in favor of simple "Average, Above Average, Excellent" Scale.

After all, is a Squad of Chaos Space Marines with a IoK "Better" than a Squad of Chaos Space Marines with an IoS? Better enough to merit the difference between, say, a 15 and a 16?

I also like his other categories, such as affordability, availability, portability, paint ability etc that are out-of-game aspects of the army that are quite important. A new player will have an easier time getting into a Templar army that they can pick up for 300$ than, say, a guard army, which might run 900$.

Silentexile said...

Codex: Eldar
Mobility: 20
Eldar are capable of making their entire army move 24" a turn (with upgrades our tanks can move 36" a turn, and almost all of their infantry have the "Fleet of Foot" universal special rule, there is no army, more capable of speed than the Eldar.
Survivability: 12
While our troops are rather fragile being only Strength and Toughness 3, our tanks (especially the Wave Serpent Transport) are among the most difficult to destroy in the game.
Fire Power: 13
The Eldar excell at close-range firepower and have some of the most specialized units in Warhammer 40k. Their downfall is the lack of weapons with over a 36" range, and as such are forced to fight mid-to-short range battles.
Assault: 7
Eldar assault units are extremely good at killing what they were designed to do. Howling Banshees for example cut through power armor like a hot knife through butter since they're all armed with power weapons. The Eldar are almost entirely Strength 3, so that hinders their ability to deal damage against Toughness 4+ enemies in close combat without psychic support from a Farseer.
Point Cost: 12
While we have some of the most points efficient units in the game (power weapon armed Howling Banshees, and Melta armed Fire Dragons, etc.,) our transports cost 3-4 times what a Space Marine pays for a Rhino, and as such, we can afford about the same amount of troops that a Space Marine player can afford. This means we have to rely on smashing apart anything that can retaliate against us in our initial attack so our inferior survivability doesn't get used against us.
Versatility: 18
Eldar have an answer for almost every problem in the game. You've got tanks? We have squads with Melta Guns, you have infatry? We've got infantry that can throw 32 shots into that squad at BS4-5. The only things Eldar do not have an adequate answer to are armor value 14 vehicles with effects that negate the extra D6 penetration from Melta, and negate the Lance rule from our Bright Lances. These vehicles being primarily the Monolith, and the Land Raider Crusader with Blessed Hull from the Black Templars codex. Our other flaw is our long-range tank-busting ablity, which is so costly and so inneffective (usually,) that we need to rely on Meltas to bring down the bigger targets like Land Raiders.

Jacob Bodmer said...

@Silentexile:
P.S. I realize I write freakin' TOMES of text. I'm not sure why, guess I just have a lot to say, but anyway, here's the TL;DR:

***While eldar units excel at a given task, the lack of in-game flexibility ultimately hamstrings their Versatility. You either have enough of unit A to accomplish task X, or you do not. Unit type B can't "Cover" Unit A should it fail. (Exception: Seer Council is pretty much a do-it-all unit)

Also, the list is very confusing for noobs, and many builds are very hard to use.***

While I agree with most of your scoring, I'd have to give Eldar a slightly lower Versatility rating, say, a 16 at best.

My reasoning for this would be twofold. First, many Eldar "builds" aren't close to viable.
Still others are "God Tier" tactically (Very, very difficult to pull off)And the Eldar list (like many others) Has a lot of dead-weight units to trap the unsuspecting noob. (Swooping Hawks)

In fact, this is more problematic in the Eldar list than in many others because they have such a staggering unit selection. Literally over TWICE that of other, simpler armies (Necrons)

And, secondly, even though they have a unit that's good for any given task, any given unit is only good for one thing.

Being fixed into a specific roll is the antithesis of versatility.

Ironically, probably the most flexible Eldar unit is Storm Guardians (Who uses them?) because they have the choice of flamers OR meltas, everyone elses "choices" simply consist of upgrades to do the job they already do even better.

Ultimately, all the versatility the Eldar have come in the Army Building phase, and not the playing phase.
This makes them rewarding for expects who know what to expect, and how many/what types of units will deal with it adequately.

However, the unexpected still hamstrings the expert when he runs into a list he didn't expect, as he may or may not have enough/right units to deal with it.

This also makes the army list, while Versatile, very dangerous territory for noobs, who not only lack knowledge of the units and what they're capable of, (and have a HUGE selection to get lost in) but also of the meta-game as a whole.

Vince said...

I really love this, but i would like to make a suggestion as to the rating system. i think that every category should be judged on a per point basis. just because grey knights have nice stats doesn't make them very good at shooting or assault, for the points that they cost.

versatility? i understand what you mean, but I think that this could just as easily sum up how multi-faceted each unit is. space marines can pick an enemy weakness to exploit. ork armies just set up at the edge of their deployment and try to roll well on their waagh, and eldar units each have only one good target.

furthermore i think that we should assume 1500-2000 points, at that range some hq's that grant special rules and abilities just aren't worth it, while some units can be spammed to incredible effect.

Vince said...

now here are my thoughts about Space Marines:

Mobility: 12
SM aren't slow, but the transports are cheap and flimsy, or expensive. really the drop pod is an incredible and undercosted transport that makes sm above average.

Survivability: 16
Per point a tac squad in a rhino is one of the most resilient units in the game.

Fire Power: 8
The few great shooting units are sternguard with two heavies, attack bikes, predator destructors, and vindicators

Assault: 8
they can obliterate truly terrible assault armies, but lose horribly to specialists.

In Game Flexibility: 20
This is their greatest asset. They can double their scoring troops, pick which drop pods they want first turn, fall back out of fights that they can't win, and every squad can do any job, just some are a bit better at it than others.

Blood Angels
Mobility: 16
assault troops, overcharged rhinos, combat god hq's with jet packs, the best marine assault squad

Survivability: 14
tac squads end up so expensive, no free weapons and forced death co limits list options.

Fire Power: 13 short 5 long
They can pack jump units with flamers and meltas. and they still have the mm attack bikes at 50. but at long range their options are pretty bad

Assault: 18
preferred enemy is broken at its old cost(dante)

Point Cost: 5
there are no cheap options

In Game Flexibility: 8
They look like they just rush the enemy, but the rhino squads can re locate at the end of the game, the scoring units don't appear dangerous but must be dealt with, while the non scoring units must be eradicated to keep from crushing any but the best assault units.

Jacob Bodmer said...

@Vince

Re: Space Marine shooting.

Sorry, what? an 8?
What about Whirlwinds?(That can put a large-blast with flamer-stat-line across the table, out of LOS)
What about Vanilla Terminators with Cyclone missile launchers?
What about Land Speeders with Missile Launchers?
Drop-Podding dreads (espc w/ Vulkan) are the ultimate in early-game tank killing.
What about Land Raider Crusaders? the ultimate marriage of dakka and durability.

Space marines are defiantly above average in shooting. They beat demons (who doesn't?) orks and nids hands down, are easily on par with chaos (if not above) beat Sisters and Gray Knights in the long-range game, and are better than the latter in the short game (Except vs demons).

Sure, they can't out shoot guard or tau (What can? Besides more guard and tau...)

They're also better than an 8 in assaults. Between crazy stuff like Assault Terminators, Chappies giving everyone a nice on-charge buff, dreads, iron clads, Sternguard + Pedro combo (3 attacks base) and Assault Marines cheaper than any other army (except the soon-to-be space wolves) They're at worst average, but can easily be made to charge like champions.

Ash said...

Chaos has Noise Marines this makes them a 100 times better at Shooty lists over SM

and they don't have a second close combat weapon this is why they are an 8 at assault.

I think that you are talking about loading your list in different directions to over load a type of combat. That is why they are a 20 for Versatility but on the whole have lower scores at assault and Shooting.

Ash

jawaballs said...

I think we need to refocus this. We are writing about each army in general. Lets try to keep this simple. Of course Eldar have the ability to throw a load of Harlequins on the table and rule the assault, but it is going to cost them a lot of points. Harlequins are not a typical Eldar army. The ability to field Harlies will help the Versatility of the Eldar Codex, but not necessarily the Assault stat.

We are trying to come up with scores IN GENERAL, not scores WHAT IF.

In General, I think we can all agree Eldar are a speedy, shooty army. Tau and IG bring the big guns with IG bringing the big tanks and Tau sorta lagging behind in that regard. To try to score an army based on each possible configuration based on which commanders or units you take is way too much.

So lets do it this way... the ability to field Harlequins and Banshees makes Eldar stand ahead of Tau for sure. But how much? In General, does that make them as good an assaulty army as Space Marines?

Also, don't Chaos now come with a pistol, ccw and bolter? That makes them a little more assaulty then standard SM I would think...

jawaballs said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rshelby said...

IMperial Guard have more mobility than Tau?

Are you kidding me, the Tau entire military is based off mobile Firepower, while the Imperial Guard are meant to be akin to a Sledgehammer, are you nuts?, im guessing some people just gave them high mobilty because of the Valkeryie, Kroot have clearly not been taken into account for Close Combat because every says what no armour save screw that and doenst even look at the other stats, the Firepower is definetly what it should be 18, having the strongest weapon outside of Apocalypse, im not a Tau lover, i hate them at most times, but the mobility and Close Combat abilities are wrong, ive seen Fire Warriors beat Vanguards in close combat, even Khorne Berzerkers, the one time i used a Battlesuit team, they wre never even touched once, they did maximum carnage and simply bounced back into cover and could not be taken out, other than that, Space Marines and Eldar are rated at what they should be.

jawaballs said...

Hey Rshelby, thanks for adding nothing to this discussion. If you had read the post you would see that I am looking for constructive posts, not criticism. You offered nothing helpful. And this is a general over view.

jawaballs said...

Sorry guys, pulling the plug on this one. I see why no one does stuff like this. This was intended to be a positive project where we all help to make it better, instead for every one helpful comment I got three negative comments and emails from guys who can only criticize other peoples input rather then offer any thing truly productive like rshelby.

Kaboom? said...

This is About Space Marines. I've only been playing for a few games, but these are my ideas:
Mobility: 13/14
They are good mobility on their own, have rhinos for 35 and razorbacks for 40, but dont have fleet or increased transport sizes. Infact, from what i read, a LR's carrying amount is the same as a Chimera.

Survivability:14-16
Good saves and all, but considering how costly their termies are compared to pariahs and other more effective killers, the standard SM is a run of the mill, but not much else

Firepower: Depends on the guns, but 15/16
If you can keep a Thunderfire cannon alive, thats an excellent moral checker. Heavy 4 at S6 with a Blast? Hard to beat, even at AP 5. 3 modes of fire? Awesome. Gunner capable of killing T4 and below and having a 2+ save with a twin-linked plasma pistol and heavy flamer? Awesome. 100 points. Good. But other wise, not so great, hence the rating. And the thunderfire is artillery. The cost is 60 bucks CAD

Assault: 12/13
The specialized assaulties can kick ass, and at WS4,S4,T4, and usually 3+, hard to kill. Take a shotgun/Blade and bolt combo and shove it in a storm and you have a moral damage unit.

Points cost:12.5/14
I'm rating it that because they are great for 13 points a model and a marine outweighs 2 orks or about 3 guardsmen. However, the starting cost was raised by 25 points, and so orks (and probably guard) have the upper hand in being able to field more.

Independent Chars: 13
A captain w/ combi-melta and lightning claw is a cheap bargain: 125 points. Killing potential:High.
Chapter tactics on 1/2 unique chars? God of War? The Chars aren't bad.

Versatility: 18
Capable at range, capable at melee, even the worst scout can take a nob down easily as long as it strikes first. S4 AP5, average guns. Even the most shootiest/assaultiest unit could do the opposite of what it was intended to do. Lots of Units that can be double-tasked, but in the end, with only 1 special and 1 heavy, beaten by some of the other races. Those tacticals HAVE to be made with a role in mind. Cover chargers? Tank busters? Pesky 2+ save busters? You can't really multi-task, except with melta-guns.

Post a Comment